A) I only said that the statement quoted by the Times was very reductive, which is not raising the guillotine.
B) I appreciate that you shared this statement, which rather turns itself into knots to both honor the critique and do the play they want to do it, but it at least shows more critical thought on their end. But here's the thing: this statement is not the one the Times quoted from. They specifically quoted, "the Shakespearean canon is based on a foundation of anti-literalism and therefore all artists should have the right to play all parts," which appears nowhere in this statement.
I stand behind the feeling that answering these questions with the blanket statement that Shakespeare is "anti-literal" and therefore all casting is open to all people is quite reductive. But again, no guillotine. |
